G.R. No. 86421 May 31, 1994
SPS. THELMA R. MASINSIN and MIGUEL MASINSIN, SPS. GILBERTO and ADELINA ROLDAN, petitioners, vs. THE HON. ED VINCENT ALBANO, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch X, DEPUTY SHERIFF JESS ARREOLA, VICENTE CAÑEDA and THE HON. LEONARDO CRUZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge Regional Trial of Manila, Branch XXV, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Vicente Cañeda filed an ejectment suit against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (“MTC”) of Manila, Branch X. On July 1, 1985, the MTC rendered judgment ordering petitioners to vacate the premises, remove their house/apartment, surrender possession to Cañeda, and pay reasonable compensation. No appeal was taken, making the judgment final and executory. Subsequently, petitioners filed multiple petitions and complaints in different courts seeking to annul the MTC decision. These included: a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) of Manila (Branch XXXII), which was dismissed; a complaint for “Annulment of Judgment, Lease Contract and Damages” before the RTC of Manila (Branch XLI), which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata (an appeal to the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, and a petition to the Supreme Court was denied); a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and restraining order before the RTC of Manila (Branch XIX), which was dismissed; and finally, another petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and for declaratory relief before the RTC of Manila (Branch XXV), which also issued a restraining order but was ultimately dismissed on August 23, 1990. During this period, a writ of execution and later an order of demolition were issued by the MTC. In the instant petition, petitioners contend that the MTC lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision because the property was proclaimed an area for priority development by the National Housing Authority on December 1, 1987, under Presidential Decree 2016.

ISSUE

Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court lost jurisdiction to enforce its final and executory decision in the ejectment case due to the property being proclaimed an area for priority development under Presidential Decree 2016.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court ruled that the MTC did not lose jurisdiction. The Court referred to its resolution in the related case G.R. No. 98446, entitled “Spouses Thelma R. Masinsin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,” where it was established, based on a report from the National Housing Authority, that the subject lot within the Carlos Estate, while declared an APD site, was “not for acquisition by NHA” and was under the administration of the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor for acquisition and upgrading. Since the NHA was definitely not acquiring the lot for its program, the purpose of the petition to avoid eviction and acquire the land under the Community Mortgage Program had no basis. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioners’ evident predilection to file multiple, meritless pleadings to delay the execution of a final judgment, which trifled with judicial processes. The Court strongly censured and warned petitioners’ counsel of record that a similar infraction of the lawyer’s oath in the future would be dealt with most severely. Double costs were imposed against petitioners.